Ethanol as Fuel

[DrDeth]

@SkyCowboy

OK Blow, one last try.

The ethanol industry likes to quote an Argonne Lab study saying ethanol production returns 134% of the original energy investment. (Let’s not use the term efficiency ratio, apparently that is confusing.)

– That means if someone invests 100 units of energy into growng corn and making ethanol, they should get 134 units of energy back.

So if 134% is really correct, why do they need subsidies, and why do they need fossil fuels in the form of natural gas and diesel fuel to run their tractors, trucks, and ethanol distilleries?

Admittedly, some of the 34% increase each cycle would have to be used to pay salaries, repair equipment, pay for lawyers, lobbyists, etc. but there should still be enough growth each production cycle so that they could divert a little of the finished product to power the cycle. That is of course unless that 134% ratio isn’t really true.

Sky

Because the "other costs’ could still bring it down to the point where they didn’t make a profit. It is possible to grow corn without using a drop of petroleum (I admit is isn’t feasable, but it’s possible- you can grow corn by hand with no tractors and such). The corn gets it’s enegery from the sun- it is just a rather inefficient solar generator- it converts solar- starch. Now here’s the problem- who much energy does it take to convert that starch to alcohol? Again- it can be done with zero petrooem. Thus - there is no violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in getting fuel from Corn. Cecil was just using his artistic license.

However- it does appear to be not economically feasable- that to grow corn in large lots takes large emounts of fuel, more to harvest it, then more again to turn it into alcohol. Even if that was (assuming everything went perfectly) 134% ENERGY efficient, the “other costs” could drive it well into red ink city.

I do think we shoudl spend a few millions in subsidies. In th elong run, we could be very happy we did so. But I am 100% against the @#$%&* Bush administration forcing CA to burn alcohol so as to pay off his supporters in the last election- and punish us for not voting for him. :mad:

[dangermouse1956]

@DrDeth

But I am 100% against the @#$%&* Bush administration forcing CA to burn alcohol so as to pay off his supporters in the last election- and punish us for not voting for him. :mad:

Shucks, I thought Bush was in bed with the oil industry! :smack: :dubious:

[John_W.Kennedy]

@dangermouse1956

Shucks, I thought Bush was in bed with the oil industry! :smack: :dubious:

What? You think there’s no markup in gasohol?

[dangermouse1956]

@John W. Kennedy

What? You think there’s no markup in gasohol?

First, my remark was made with my tounge in my cheek (which is why it’s good that I was typing at the time rather than trying to talk to you with my tongue therewith preoccupied).

It’s only that since gasohol is partially ethanol (by definition), then there is less actual petroleum product being sold than would otherwise be the case. That’s all.

[John_W.Kennedy]

The petroleum industry being vertical, they can make themselves a cash cow out of the alcohol in gasohol, too.

[Go_You_Big_Red_Fire_Engine]

Ethanol doesn’t make thermodynamic sense because we need to use lots of energy to compress those millions of years to a few months, and pay to provide the heat and pressure Mother Nature provides gratis.
Ethanol production would make thermodyamic sense if our corn farmers would grow the corn, bury it, and then wait 70 million years or so to let Mother Nature turn it into petroleum. Obviously we can’t do that, so instead the ethanol industry wants us to subsidize paying for energy to compress that time into a few months.

There are soooo many things wrong with this. This is the worst analogy I’ve ever seen.

And to make it we have to spend energy to accelerate a process that would happen naturally if we just buried the corn and waited a few million years.

Yes, because we all know that it takes millions of years for yeast organisms to turn sugar into ethanol :rolleyes:

[Chronos]

Quoth dangermouse1956:

As of a couple of years ago, the US used about 3.29 terawatts–millions of megawatts–of total energy per year.

A common source of confusion: Watts (or terrawatts, for that matter) are not a unit of energy, but of power. Watts per year aren’t a particularly meaningful unit at all. I can think of two ways to interpret the above statement: Either that’s supposed to mean that the U.S. uses 3.29 terawatts (note no time specified there), or it’s supposed to mean that we use 3.29 terawatt hours per year (a terawatt hour being the amount of energy produced by a power of 1 terawatt running for one hour; now it’s a unit of energy). I don’t know which interpretation, if either, is correct: The former seems too high, while the latter seems a bit low.

To further illustrate the distinction: A one megawatt power plant will put out a power of one megawatt, no matter how long your time period. If you run the plant for one hour, then it’ll put out a total energy of one megawatt hour. If you run it for a year, then it’ll put out an energy of 8766 megawatt hours, or 8.766 gigawatt hours.